Goodthink : For Immediate dissemination

[Katya Mullethov]

from NSSF via gunbroker.com ....... control the language , control the debate .

///////

The National Shooting Sports Foundation is trying to rebuild the image of the AR-15 rifle and you can help. The NSSF has coined the term Modern Sporting Rifle to more accurately describe the AR-15 platform and is asking that shooters do the same. The NSSF asks you to be an informed gun owner and to use the following facts to correct misconceptions about these rifles.

If AR-15-style modern sporting rifles are banned, your favorite traditional-looking hunting or target shooting semi-automatic firearm could be banned, too.

´ AR-15-platform rifles are among the most popular firearms being sold. They are today's modern sporting rifle.

´ The AR in "AR-15" rifle stands for Armalite rifle, after the company that developed it in the 1950s. "AR" does NOT stand for "assault rifle" or "automatic rifle."

´ AR-15-style rifles are NOT "assault weapons" or "assault rifles." An assault rifle is fully automatic –– a machine gun. Automatic firearms have been severely restricted from civilian ownership since 1934.

´ AR-15-style rifles look like military rifles, such as the M-16, but function like other semi-automatic civilian sporting firearms, firing only one round with each pull of the trigger.

´ Versions of modern sporting rifles are legal to own in all 50 states, provided the purchaser passes the mandatory FBI background check required for all retail firearm purchasers.

´ Since the 19th century, civilian sporting rifles have evolved from their military predecessors. The modern sporting rifle simply follows that tradition.

´ AR-15-style rifles are no more powerful than other hunting rifles of the same caliber and in most cases are chambered in calibers less powerful than common big-game hunting cartridges like the 30-06 Springfield and .300 Win. Mag.

´ And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!

[benEzra]

1. Considering the way the prohibitionists have framed AR's for the last two decades...

it's about darn time that the NSSF pulled its head out of its collective posterior and realized that most gun owners are not "sportsmen." (God, I hate that term.)

It's the most popular civilian rifle in America, and it's nice to finally see some acknowledgement of that at a higher level than the grassroots...

[Katya Mullethov]

14. It certainly isnt about sport

The point is that prohibitionists have an immense amount of linguistic capital they have been building on for so long . They didnt call it an AWB for nothin' .

I like the term "modern repeating rifle" myself .

[X_Digger]

2. I agree, but..

"The 2nd Amendment doesn't state that we have the right to keep and bear sporting goods." - attributed to LtC Jeff Cooper

I think there's a danger in accepting the 'sporting purposes' language of the 1968 GCA as the scope of the 2nd amendment.

[gorfle]

3. I agree with you 100%

It is a mistake to try and couch assault rifles as having "legitimate sporting uses".

The second amendment is not about sport. We should not be attempting to mollify anti-firearm folks by couching the debate in terms of sport.

The second amendment is about putting military-grade small arms in the hands of civilians so that they could replace or at least counter federal military small arms.

Let's leave the debate where it is.

[bossy22]

12. i dont think that is something to really worry about

i dont think the sporting clause would really stand a constitutional muster. If the core right of the second amendment is weapon possession for self defense- then logically it follows that weapons that are protected are those that have a self defense purpose. The sporting purpose would then run anti to this conclusion and therefore cannot be supported.

[era veteran]

4. The 5.56 round tumbles

Can hit you in the shoulder and come out your elbow. It causes more battlefield wounds than death, which causes several soldiers to take care of the wounded, takes 0 soldiers to take care of the dead. For hunting with a military rifle I think the Springfield '03 would be best. If it takes you 15 to 20 rounds to kill a deer you should stay home and make up lies.

[SlipperySlope]

5. Actually it doesn't tumble more than any other bullet.

The 5.56 mm round does not "tumble" any more than other bullets. That is a misconception that has carried over from the 1960s due to faulty analysis of the wounding properties of the military M193 round.

Pretty much all bullets, after entering flesh, will yaw and attempt to turn 180 degrees around so that they are traveling "backwards". This is because it is inherently unstable for a projectile to travel with the center of gravity behind the center of pressure. Bullets traveling through the air are able to overcome this instability due to the spin the barrel imparts upon them. But flesh is 100s or 1000s times denser than air and thereby has a much bigger lever on the center of pressure.

Where the military M193 round does differ from most other military rounds is that the bullet is relatively fragile. If it hits flesh at above 2700 feet per second then the bullet is likely to fragment. It is this fragmentation that gives the M193 round greater than expected wounding potential.

Now, let's back up for a moment and consider the limitations placed upon the military by the Hague Convention of 1899. Under this convention bullets that expand or flatten were prohibited for use in combat between signatory states. That means that all signatory militaries were basicly limited to full-metal-jacket bullets. The M193 meets this definition but produces wounds larger than its size would lead one to expect.

There is no historical record I am aware of that suggests the M193 was designed with fragmentation as a goal. It appears to have been more of an accident that produced favorable (from the point of view of the US military) results.

Below 2700 feet-per-second the M193 does not fragment and produces wounds more in line with what one would expect from a .22 caliber FMJ bullet.

Now, consider things from outside the military context. Neither police nor civilians are under the same limitations as the military with regards to expanding bullets. Therefore, the first choice of 5.56 mm bullets for both police and civilians would be an expanding hollowpoint (such as the Hornady TAP) which produces more reliable and consistent wounding regardless of velocity. But now that we are considering what police or civilians would select, and have opened consideration to hollowpoint bullets, we have removed any "advantage" that the fragmentation of the M193 offers. Police and civilians have expanding bullets in all calibers available to them so the 5.56mm would be on the low end of wounding potential.

As a tangent, while the M193 does not significantly tumble, there is at least one round that was specifically designed to tumble. The Soviet 5.45x39mm was designed with the center of gravity very far to the rear and with a tip that would deform upon contact in order to rapidly produce yaw.

[era veteran]

6. I guess my Drill Sargent lied to me

[eqfan592]

7. Being mistaken and lying are not one in the same.

It wouldn't be the first time such a myth was propagated by an authority figure of sorts. I doubt there was any malice involved.

[era veteran]

8. Regardless I would prefer the '03

Who needs that many rounds for hunting?

[AtheistCrusader]

9. US M1917

Go big or go home.

Actually, the AR is quite capable of hunting, chambered in .223, but just for smaller stuff than deer goats dogs.

[eqfan592]

10. Mabye you don't need that many rounds for hunting.

So what? I'm not sure I follow your point.

[era veteran]

13. You only need a large magazine for people hunting

I know someone will say they like to fire off a bunch of rounds target shooting. I don't see the need for large capacity magazines in civilian life. I know there are great arguments against restrictions. This is how I feel about this. I don't need to re-con by fire for hunting. That, again, is how I feel. Peace, Richard

[benEzra]

16. Or IPSC/USPSA competition, or IDPA, or use for defensive purposes.

The AR-15 is the most popular sporting rifle in the United States, and WITH normal-capacity magazines dominates competitive AND recreational target shooting in this country.



It's also popular for predator and varmint hunting, and is the most popular defensive carbine in U.S. homes.

Small-caliber rifles are almost never used for "hunting people" in this country; all rifles COMBINED account for only 2.6% of U.S. murders, and falling; twice as many people are murdered with shoes and bare hands. Get a grip.

[eqfan592]

18. Big time.

If you can't demonstrate a good reason to restrict something in a free society then that thing shouldn't be restricted. And besides, given how quickly magazines can be changed out, limits on magazine capacities are about as useless as can be.

[era veteran]

20. I have a fine grip thank-you

I. thats just me, don't agree. You should respect that.

[benEzra]

23. You didn't say that you yourself only need "large" magazines for "people hunting."

You referred to the rest of us with that statement. If you meant that it's the only reason you yourself would want one, that's fine, but don't pretend that the 40 or 50 million Americans who own "large" capacity magazines own them for "hunting people."

[Katya Mullethov]

25. P Mags and bayonets

Requisite hurricane and riot gear . Nearly as indispensable as qualifying one's opinions with " I hunt but " .

[era veteran]

27. Never the fuck mind

You know what I'm referring to. The idiots who can use them to fucking shoot multiple people easily. OUT

[benEzra]

28. You mean like at Virginia Tech, the worst mass shooting in U.S. history? Oh, wait.

That was a 9mm pistol. Fort Hood? .22 caliber pistol (5.7x28mm). Columbine? Oh, wait, 12-gauge pump, 12-gauge side-by-side, and two 9mm's (one 10-round carbine and one pistol). Luby's, prior to VT the worst mass shooting in the USA? Oops, a pair of 9mm's (a Ruger and a Glock).

Care to point me in the direction of the epidemic of mass shootings with AR-15's that you're referring to? There isn't one, is there?

[Katya Mullethov]

29. You're describing a Henry Repeating Rifle

Load it on Sunday and shoot all week with 18 rounds in the tube .

[PavePusher]

30. So, when shown you don't know what you're driveling about...

you resort to profanity and tantrums.

Very telling.

[friendly_iconoclast]

He's a Firearms Under Deliberative Discussion member, in other words

Some people just have an irrational dislike of the "new", which others have pointed out, really isn't so new..

[PavePusher]

33. Love the acronym! n/t

[friendly_iconoclast]

31. Ah, another "*MY* deadly weapons are morally superior to *yours*" type

They pop up on a regular basis here.

Inevitably, they issue some frothing rant against some form of gun (and their owners), while claiming to be
a hunter and/or gun owner. Said rant will invariably include a proclamation that the type(s) of gun the ranter
claims to own/has owned is good enough for everybody, and anything of larger ammunition capacity/better accuracy/newer design is EVIL - and so are the owners.

Then they go away when the inevitable fisking occurs.

Happens about once a month, as far as I can tell...

[Euromutt]

34. Okay, it's not just me then

Because frankly, I'm starting to equate posts that open with "I'm not against guns/I own a gun, but..." with "I'm not racist/Some of my best friends are black, but..." in the sense that what comes after the "but" pretty much contradicts the opening disclaimer.

[friendly_iconoclast]

35. Seven telltale signs of the "*M*DWAMST*Y*DW" poster

1. While not necessarily new at DU, they are usually new at the Guns forum.

2. Their posts fit the description I originally gave.

3. When challenged, they get angry and respond profanely.

4. They rarely hang around more than a few days or weeks.

5. When they do leave the Guns forum, they do not return.

6. A month (more or less) later, a new one shows up.

7. You can detect the odor of artificial grass emanating from their posts.

[metalbot]

26. What if hunting were banned?

If hunting were banned (and it's clearly constitutional to do so), would you argue then that no civilian should need a rifle?

[benEzra]

15. AR hunting mags typically hold 4-5 rounds in the deer calibers.

Same as any other deer rifle.

Most deer hunters wouldn't use a .223/5.56 for deer, though; more like a 6.8mm or .30 Remington upper.

[benEzra]

17. Did he say that other caliber bullets don't tumble? And what does he know about civilian ammo?

Tumbling rather than expansion is pretty much specific to FMJ; civilian hollowpoint and softpoint loads expand while continuing nose-first, and if they fragment it's generally from a nose-first orientation.

[Euromutt]

19. Drill sergeants have been known to talk bollocks on occasion

The myth that you can't legally use .50 BMG rounds against personnel is another one that gets peddled by some drill sergeants, sometimes with the claim added that it's the Geneva Convention that prohibits this. As it happens, I'm a former infantry sergeant in the Dutch army, and the chapter in my field manual for NCOs and junior officers on the M2-HB states that personnel are legitimate targets; and the Dutch army is party to a number of treaties that the US isn't (such as the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions).

Actually, the Geneva Conventions don't discuss what types of ammunition are or are not permissible; there are two documents that cover that, namely the Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight of St.Petersburg of 1868, and the Declaration (IV,3) concerning Expanding Bullets, appended to the The Hague Convention of 1899 (correctly mentioned by SlipperySlope above). In effect, explosive ammunition under 35mm caliber is prohibited against personnel (though not against vehicles or aircraft), and dum-dum and hollowpoint rounds. But as long you're firing ball (FMJ) rounds, it doesn't matter what caliber it is.

And there are other things. One friend of my mine had a drill sergeant explaining the difference between disciplinary infractions and criminal offenses, but the sarge didn't do a very good job of it. He was talking about "punishable" and "non-punishable" offenses, and then listed the punishments that could be given for "non-punishable" offenses. Say what now? Non-punishable, of course, under criminal law, but the sarge didn't know how to make that clear.

[SlipperySlope]

21. I wouldn't say he lied.

The belief that M193 tumbled was once widespread. It was the best explanation that was originally proffered for the wounds that this round produced. I'm not sure when they finally figured out the actual wounding factors, but I would not blame your DI if the newer information hadn't made its way to him.

The key idea your DI was trying to impart, and what is a fact, is that the M193 round can produce wounds of far greater severity than what would be expected from a .22 caliber full-metal-jacket round. The actual mechanics of that wounding, be they tumbling or fragmentation, are probably only of interest of those who study these matters.

[PavePusher]

24. So, just because an a person could hunt with an AR...

equates to them using 15-20 rounds per deer in your eyes.

Are you retarded?

[Hoopla Phil]

11. Excellent post. K and R

[Electric Monk]

22. And, they are a lot of fun to shoot!

Gun control means never having to say "I missed you"....

:/

[DU GrovelBot]

32. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our fourth quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!